The Guardian has a damn interesting article about the new Digital Rights Management (DRM) technology about to hit consumers with HD and Blu-Ray: The Advanced Access Content System backed and co-developed by Sony, Toshiba, Intel, IBM, Panasonic, Microsoft, Warner Brothers and Disney. This quote from Mike Evangelist of HD Boycott puts it in perspective:

“The most objectionable aspect of AACS is that it allows the seller to retain control of the use of the disc forever. They can determine what devices will play it, how and where it can be copied and used, and even change the quality of the output depending on whether or not the devices are ‘approved’. The providers can change the rules whenever they like. You will no longer have any certainty about what you can do with your own property, now or in the future.”

Scary? You bet. Seth Schoen of the Electronic Frontier Foundation also chimes in, quoted in the article as saying:

The key management system is aimed at preventing people from making unauthorised players, not from making unauthorised copies, and it probably won’t prevent file sharing either.

It’s easier to see why major electronics companies and Microsoft are keen on AACS: because it will help them curtail competition among players and stop anyone from introducing unforeseen disruptive innovations in the home entertainment market. The VCR, TiVo, and Slingbox have all come from nowhere and shaken things up; major manufacturers and entertainment companies would like to see that this doesn’t happen again.

It’s conceptually creepy that someone can take away functionality from a product after you bought it. That said, this particular problem is now pervasive in high technology, not just in DRM. A mobile-phone carrier can take away functionality from a phone after you bought it. If you use a non-open source operating system, your operating system developer can take away functionality from your computer afterwards. So this is a broad trend and I would not single out AACS revocation for unique criticism.

I would like customers to worry about the big picture of the ability of manufacturers to take away functionality you’ve paid for, and, conversely, to stop you from tinkering or getting add-ons to improve the functionality of your products. This is an issue for our time that goes well beyond AACS.”

So, should we be worried? Most definitely. If you want to know why, have a look at the Microsoft Research DRM talk. In a nutshell, this DRM talk points out that DRM systems don’t work (with caveats), they’re bad for society, they’re bad for business, and bad for artists. These things aside, it’s rather outragous that some company is going to dictate to me what I can and cannot do with my property.

The talk points out clearly that “DRM only works if your record player becomes the property of whomever’s records you’re playing”, and the AACS is attempting to do just that. In other words, this is not just about combating “piracy” (which these days is a phrase used by music and film execs akin to a government’s use of the term “war on terror”). This is about maintaining and building profit monopolies by preventing any possiblity of competition and third-party innovation.